Ex Parte Avison-Fell

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 1, 2017

12977948 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/977,948 12/23/2010 Craig Avison-Fell 066.0306 (P2010-07-11) 1304 70560 7590 03/03/2017 T KCrlnhal CRphnStari EXAMINER 7010 E. COCHISE ROAD SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85253 HANCE, ROBERT J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2423 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/03/2017 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): IPDEPT @ echostar.com docketing @LKGlobal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CRAIG AVISON-FELL Appeal 2016-007842 Application 12/977,948 Technology Center 2400 Before ERIC S. FRAHM, CATHERINE SHIANG, and CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20, which are all the claims pending and rejected in application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2016-007842 Application 12/977,948 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction According to the Specification, the present invention relates to dynamically recognizing an image within a video component of a multimedia presentation of a distribution system based on a stored representation or description of the image. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method for detecting an image in one or more frames of a video multimedia presentation, the method comprising: receiving a broadcast multimedia presentation originating from a broadcast server and broadcast via a network, the broadcast multimedia presentation comprising an audio component and a video component; selecting a first frame from the video component of the multimedia presentation; analyzing the first frame for one or more features of an object, wherein the object is generic to a plurality of different video multimedia presentations; comparing the one or more features to one or more images stored in a database if the one or more features are present in the first frame; providing the first frame to a display device for display; and creating a link to access information associated with the object. Cuttner Li References and Rejections US 2004/0221308 A1 Nov. 4, 2004 US 2009/0113475 A1 Apr. 30, 2009 2 Appeal 2016-007842 Application 12/977,948 Goncalves US 2011/0286628 A1 Nov. 24, 2011 Dimitrova WO 01/72040 A2 Sept. 27,2001 Claims 1—6, 8, 10, and 17—19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dimitrova and Goncalves Claims 7, 11—16, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dimitrova, Goncalves, and Li. Claim 9 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dimitrova, Goncalves, and Cuttner. ANALYSIS We disagree with Appellant’s arguments, and agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our analysis below. On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1. Appellant contends Dimitrova does not teach “analyzing the first frame for one or more features of an object, wherein the object is generic to a plurality of different video multimedia presentations” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). See App. Br. 8—9. In particular, Appellant contends the Examiner erred in citing U.S. Patent Application 09/370,931 (“’931 Application”), which is incorporated by reference into Dimitrova (Dimitrova 3:1—4), for teaching “generic to a plurality of’ objects. See App. Br. 8—9. Appellant argues “Dimitrova discloses the recognition of specific items such as logos and text, not those that are generic to a plurality of objects. . . . 3 Appeal 2016-007842 Application 12/977,948 Dimitrova makes no mention of the recognition of generic objects.” App. Br. 8. Appellant has not persuaded us of error. Appellant’s assertion about the ’931 Application is not directed to the Examiner’s specific mapping, as the Examiner cites Dimitrova itself—not the ’931 Application—for teaching the “generic” feature. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 2—3. Further, Appellant’s assertion that “Dimitrova discloses the recognition of specific items such as logos and text, not those that are generic to a plurality of objects” (App. Br. 8) is unpersuasive, as Appellant does not explain why Dimitrova’s text is not generic to a plurality of objects. In addition, in response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner provides further findings showing Dimitrova teaches the disputed claim limitation. See Ans. 2—3. The Examiner finds Dimitrova’s text is a generic object appearing in different video multimedia presentations. See Ans. 2 (citing Dimitrova 4:5—7; 10:34—35; Fig. 4). Therefore, the Examiner finds Dimitrova teaches the text “is generic to a plurality of different video multimedia presentations,” as required by the claim (emphasis added). See Ans. 2. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s explanation. Therefore, Appellant fails to show error in the Examiner’s findings. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court [or this Board] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”). Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claims 11 and 17 for similar reasons. 4 Appeal 2016-007842 Application 12/977,948 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent claims 2—10, 12—16, and 18—20, as Appellant does not advance separate substantive arguments for those claims. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 5